On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 11:03:20AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Dmitry Baryshkov (2024-10-17 09:56:56)
> > From: Kalpak Kawadkar <quic_kkawadka@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > On some platforms branch clock will be enabled before Linux.
> > It is expectated from the clock provider is to poll on the clock
>
> Unfortunately 'expectated' is not a word. The sentence is also
> grammatically incorrect.
>
> > to ensure it is indeed enabled and not HW gated, thus add
> > the BRANCH_HALT_POLL flag.
> [...]
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-branch.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-branch.c
> > index 229480c5b075a0e70dc05b1cb15b88d29fd475ce..c4c7bd565cc9a3926e24bb12ed6355ec6ddd19fb 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-branch.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-branch.c
> > @@ -76,6 +76,7 @@ static int clk_branch_wait(const struct clk_branch *br, bool enabling,
> > udelay(10);
> > } else if (br->halt_check == BRANCH_HALT_ENABLE ||
> > br->halt_check == BRANCH_HALT ||
> > + br->halt_check == BRANCH_HALT_POLL ||
>
> The name is confusing. The halt check is already "polling", i.e. this
> isn't a different type of halt check. This is really something like
> another branch flag that doesn't have to do with the halt checking and
> only to do with skipping writing the enable bit. Maybe we should
> introduce another clk_ops for these types of clks instead.
SGTM. All clocks with this flag use clk_branch2_aon_ops, so it is easy
to switch to a separate clk_ops.
>
> > (enabling && voted)) {
> > int count = 200;
> >
> > @@ -97,6 +98,10 @@ static int clk_branch_toggle(struct clk_hw *hw, bool en,
> > struct clk_branch *br = to_clk_branch(hw);
> > int ret;
> >
> > + if (br->halt_check == BRANCH_HALT_POLL) {
>
> Remove braces
>
> > + return clk_branch_wait(br, en, check_halt);
>
> Remove extra space ^
>
> > + }
> > +
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
